Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description does not add behavioral specifics beyond the annotation, such as whether source people are deleted, whether the merge is reversible, or what side effects occur on related data. It simply restates the merging action without enriching the agent's understanding of what gets destroyed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose is delivered in one clear sentence, followed by a concise prerequisite instruction. There is no redundancy or filler; every sentence earns its place. The core behavior is front-loaded before the skill instruction.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive mutation tool with no output schema and minimal parameter descriptions, the description should clarify side effects, return behavior, and any constraints. It only provides the merge concept and a skill reference. An agent would still need to inspect the skill or infer critical details about what happens to source records.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry semantic weight. It does clarify the roles of 'source' and 'target' and notes 'one or more' source people, which aligns with sourcePersonIds' minItems: 1. However, it does not explain ID formats, uniqueness expectations, or what happens if a source person equals the target person. Basic semantics are present but not comprehensive.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Merge'), a clear resource ('people'), and the relationship between source and target persons: 'Merge one or more source people into a target person.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like merge_companies and merge_topics by resource type.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes a prerequisite for first use ('read the skill: modem_skills(...)') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as merge_companies, merge_topics, or update_people. Usage is only implied by the tool name and resource type. There are no exclusions or alternative routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.